SPN Lifer

Yet what, exactly, that "purpose" might be remains mostly unknown. It seems to be a shortcoming of United Air Lines information technology, with no ready solution.

doug_999

Oh, I am positive that purpose is to sell an EC+ aisle seat

I get it, times are tough - and at the same time, if they are going to do this, they should alert you. You only get "alerted" if there is an AC swap - otherwise it is done in the stealth of the night

ExplorerWannabe

So instead of 1 ticket possibly not getting sold because only middles were available, 2 tickets might not be sold because the traveling pair can't depend on United to keep from cramming them in together? Sorry but your argument sounds like rationalizing to me and it's not even good economic rationalizing. Your explanation would have United forgo the pair of tickets that would travel on United but will otherwise book to another airline against the possibility that someone won't book a ticket in the instance that only middle seats are available.

HNLbasedFlyer

I suspect UA thinks Window/Aisle bookings are not a big issue or that those travelers can book Aisle - Aisle

WineCountryUA

This comes to mind
Hanlon's razor

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

or a more modern phasing

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by IT incompetence

dilanesp

Except the one ticket might be to someone paying a higher fare, and the two tickets might be to the type of customers who an airline might prefer fly other airlines because they game seat maps.

Plus those latter travelers may not even find out until post-purchase.

justpetehere

Just had this happen to me after check in and my original seat was taken by the time I noticed. The Global Services rep was very apologetic but nothing they can do. Infuriating.

raehl311

I still wonder if this is something they're doing on flights that at some point had the middles blocked, assuming people intended to sit next to each other but didn't because of the block and now they're "fixing" it for you.

But yes I would definitely be annoyed.

What if both travelers just hate the middle seat, and that opinion doesn't change if they happen to be on the same reservation?

Does buying two seats on one ticket mean one of the passengers has to give up access to aisle/window as part of the deal?

Guate87

No, this is something United has done to me and my family as far back as 2014, when I first earned elite status.

ExplorerWannabe

Now we're getting into the What If games. I've had ticket prices go higher and go lower when buying at the last minute. I've seen extra charges for preferred seating for window and aisle seats. Ticket prices are so variable that you can't make a generalization on that. Bottom line IMO is that your position of arbitrarily moving customers who bought tickets and chose W & A seats to W & M or A & M in the off-chance that someone who is buying a ticket later might buy a ticket for a W or A but not for a M seat is far more likely to deter random pairs from buying tickets on UA altogether. That's great for the last minute purchaser who will then have his/her/its pick of W or A but is probably not too good for UA's bottom line in the long run.

In the case you posit, the plane is already running at 67% or better capacity and that single ticket is part of a "fill the plane" mode but your strategy would keep the plane at 50% or less capacity as pairs of passengers switch to an airline that doesn't do this. I don't run an airline but that just makes no sense to me -- the ticket prices may go up or down from when it hit the point where only middle seats were available and the traveler faced with only middle seats is also likely to have other constraints that force him/her/it to take that flight regardless of seat availability.

I'm in the camp that ascribes this work to negligence on the part of the programmers when conducting equipment switches because IMO deterring pairs of customers who will buy in advance in order to possibly keep open seats for a later single purchase makes zero sense from a business standpoint.

Boraxo

Exactly. And there is every incentive for the customer to buy 2 tickets on a single reservation locator in order to preserve elite benefits for both customers (especially E+ seating for both passengers!) for IRROPS handling, etc. But if UA wants us to buy separate tix in order to preserve seat assignments I can do that too.

dilanesp

At some point, if you run a business and people are gaming your system, you have to make decisions that might make things a bit harder for non-gamers to stop the gaming.

So yes, maybe a couple has to split a reservation or reserve across the aisle or two different aisles. That's not really that high a cost to pay (especially since they can always pay for an EXTRASEAT and get EXACTLY what they want).

​​​​​But the practice of giving away the seat to someone assigned a middle is a practice the airline is correct to want to stop. It is a minor form of theft from the airline and potentially another passenger. This stops it. Hooray United.

Xyzzy

It's nt theft at all. It's customers choosing the seats they want.

HNLbasedFlyer

While I don't consider it theft - I do think UA is in the right if they moving companions together who left a middle open. People can sit together - choose aisle-aisle, or certainly fly another airline if they believe other airlines aren't doing this.

My personal opinion - people book this to intentionally try to keep the middle open - and while it may be a good faith choice of seats, it really is gaming the system. This one wants a window one wants a aisle is easily solved by one person choosing a window and the other taking the aisle across the aisle - then everyone gets what they want, including UA

SPN Lifer

It would be interesting for people to try this "window & opposite aisle" technique to see if it serves as a work-around for the involuntary seat assignments.